1.9 schmonz 1: [[tron]] suggests that non-developers should be able to post content
2: to a staging area, to be approved (possibly after editing) by
3: developers. [[schmonz]] likes this idea a lot.
4:
5: > what about to make a sub-page called e.g. User contributed
6: > documentation an give non-developers rw access there while editing
7: > other parts(TNF contributed) of wiki will require developers account
8: > or possible some sort of bless from a developer. --[[haad]]
9:
1.10 schmonz 10: >> From ikiwiki's PoV, this is equivalent to the Discussion-subpage
11: >> approach (merely a tweak to a PageSpec). From the human PoV, it's
12: >> a tradeoff. If we make a whole hierarchy world-editable, users will
13: >> be able to directly edit any page in that hierarchy, but we'll wind
14: >> up with two pages on every topic of interest and readers will have
15: >> to check both. A discussion subpage isn't the page itself, but the
16: >> relation of the two is never ambiguous.
17: >>
18: >> Neither approach is ideal. A possible improvement: in addition
1.11 ! schmonz 19: >> to making making Discussion pages world-editable, use the
! 20: >> [[!iki ikiwiki/directive/inline]] directive on each main topic page to
1.10 schmonz 21: >> include the relevant Discussion subpage below, with a disclaimer
22: >> about the provenance of that content. Then both developers and users
23: >> can effectively edit the page, and the reader can easily discern
24: >> what's what.
25: >>
26: >> Best if this inlining could be automated somehow, rather than
27: >> requiring someone to add a directive to each page. --[[schmonz]]
28:
1.9 schmonz 29: _For non-developers using [[anonymous CVS|wiki/todo/push_wikisrc_to_anoncvs]]_:
30: submit a diff to `netbsd-docs@`.
31:
32: _For non-developers using a web browser_: the ikiwiki discussion
33: subpage and/or [[!iki plugins/comments desc="comments plugin"]] may
34: point toward the solution.
1.3 wiki 35:
36: One of the reasons we [[chose ikiwiki|wiki/todo/choose_wiki_software]]
1.9 schmonz 37: is the ability to edit via CVS directly, as well as via the web.
38: As long as every wiki editor is a developer, controlling access
39: consistently is simple. In order to open up wiki editing to
40: non-developers, we have to think carefully about both the CVS case
41: and the web case.
1.3 wiki 42:
43: In the short term, to start getting non-developers involved, I intend
44: to [[push wikisrc to anoncvs]] and
45: [[hook up wiki commits to www-changes@]].
46:
47: In the long term, ikiwiki has a few ready-made web authentication
48: options (a locally managed user database, OpenID, and HTTP auth), and
49: if they don't suffice for some reason, it's easy enough to write an
50: auth plugin. The hard part is deciding the workflow: where is a
51: sensible place for non-developers to make their edits, and what is a
52: sensible way for developers to review and "bless" the changes? Two
53: ikiwiki-native possibilities are listed above.
54:
55: Ideas welcome! Edit this page and add your comments. --[[schmonz]]
1.4 wiki 56:
1.5 wiki 57: One idea (which needs to be considered by board@):
1.4 wiki 58:
59: 7. Enable Discussion subpages.
60: 7. Mark very clearly on the Discussion page template that content may
61: have been written by anyone at all and has not been vetted by any
62: member of TNF.
1.6 wiki 63: 7. Enable the `anonok` plugin and set the `anonok_pagespec` to allow
64: anonymous editing of Discussion subpages (and of no other pages).
1.4 wiki 65:
66: The resulting workflow:
67:
68: 7. Non-developer finds a page to which to suggest changes.
1.9 schmonz 69: 7. Non-developer edits its Discussion subpage and writes the suggested
70: changes.
71: 7. Developer who follows [[RecentChanges]] (or the commit mails)
72: notices the changes.
73: 7. If the changes aren't acceptable, developer edits the Discussion
74: subpage and explains why not.
75: 7. If the changes are acceptable, developer applies them to the
76: page and removes them from the Discussion subpage.
77:
78: > This can be work flow for a TNF contributed pages but as I said
79: > above this is not acceptable for as normal wiki workflow. We had
80: > almost similar discussion about comments on a blog software for
81: > NetBSD. There were developers who thought that there will be too
82: > many comments and we do not have man power to read/approve them
83: > all. After setting blog we have found that we have barely 1-2
84: > comments in every third article. I don;t thing that there will be
85: > too many real editors on our wiki from non-developers and therefore
86: > we need to make it easy not hard to do. --[[haad]]